Robert J. Marzano
Art & Science of Teaching
The Principal’s Role in Hierarchical Evaluation
In a fully
aligned,
hierarchical
system, district
leaders, school
leaders, and
teachers define
the right work in
the same way.
District leadership, school leadership, and teacher actions are all working parts in a complex system of interacting influences that positively affect student
achievement—if they function in harmony. In a
misaligned system, even if individual initiatives
within schools, districts, and classrooms are
well executed, they tend to cancel one another
out.
One powerful way to ensure that the components of the entire system are aligned is to
use hierarchical evaluation:
District leaders are evaluated
on the extent to which they
produce specific results in
the actions of school leaders,
school leaders are evaluated
on the extent to which they
produce specific results in
the actions of teachers, and
teachers are evaluated on
the extent to which they
produce specific results in
student achievement.
A hierarchical evaluation
system has two defining
characteristics: cascading domains of influence
and common rubric structures.
Robert J. Marzano is
cofounder and CEO
of Marzano Research
Laboratory in Denver,
Colorado, and executive
director of the Learning
Sciences Marzano
Center in Palm Beach
Gardens, Florida.
He is coauthor, with
Michael Toth, of Teacher
Evaluation That Makes a
Difference: A New Model
for Teacher Growth and
Student Achievement
(ASCD, 2013).
Cascading Domains of Influence
In a hierarchical evaluation system, major categories of evaluation at higher levels directly
influence categories at lower levels. In this
model, district leadership occupies the highest
level, followed by school leadership, then
teacher activity, and finally, the achievement of
individual students.
The district leader model includes six categories, or domains of influence, that the leader
will be evaluated on: ( 1) a data-driven focus on
district achievement, ( 2) continual improvement
of instruction, ( 3) a guaranteed and viable curriculum, ( 4) cooperation and collaboration,
( 5) district climate, and ( 6) resource allocation.
The first five domains relate directly to similar
domains in the next level down—the school
leadership level. (The sixth domain is only relevant at the district level.)
Consider Domain 1 of the district leader
evaluation model: a data-driven focus on district
achievement. This directly relates to Domain 1
of the school leader evaluation model: a data-driven focus on school achievement. The two
domains are clearly aligned.
For example, in Domain 1, the district leader
must ensure that the district
has clear and measurable
goals that focus on student
achievement and growth,
that schools regularly use
data to monitor student
progress, and that programs
and practices are in place to
help all students meet indi-
vidual achievement goals
when data indicate that
interventions are needed.
A district leader might set a
goal that the average scores
in the district for student
growth will increase by a specific amount in
the next year. Throughout the year, the district
leader would monitor not only the district’s
progress on this goal, but also the progress of
individual schools, paying particular attention
to schools with greater populations of struggling
students. For these schools, the district leader
would examine their use of resources, providing
extra assistance if necessary.
The corresponding domain for the school
leader evaluation model highlights similar
responsibilities relating to data use and school
achievement, but at the school level. For
example, school leaders are expected to have
clear and measureable goals for the achievement
of the school as a whole, as well as for individual students, and they’re expected to monitor
data regarding the achievement of these goals.
